Latest news with #UNTreatyontheProhibitionofNuclearWeapons
Sydney Morning Herald
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Is the world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe? This expert thinks so
Fitz: Lights, camera, Kevin07! MP: Yes, and in parliament, the issues of concern to my Fremantle constituents tended to be the same things I was passionate about: that Australia should be a good global citizen, protect the environment, respect human rights and animal welfare, practice good governance and [be an] advocate for nuclear disarmament. Fitz: And what propelled you to leave parliament a decade later, even though by that point you'd had a stint as the minister for international development in the second Rudd government? MP: I'd been there for three terms and felt it was time to let someone else have the extraordinary privilege of being the federal MP for Freo. And frankly I was pretty burnt out. The next year I was asked to become an ambassador for ICAN Australia, and it went from there. Fitz: Which brings us indeed to ICAN. What is the central idea? MP: The idea is to abolish nuclear weapons globally. The campaign started in Melbourne in 2007, with a small group of people sitting around a kitchen table who decided to start a campaign based on earlier successful campaigns to ban landmines and cluster munitions, as well as chemical and biological weapons – you ban these inhumane weapons, and they become morally and legally unacceptable. Within 10 years of having started that campaign, ICAN had become a global civil society movement headquartered in Geneva, made up of hundreds of partner organisations around the world. It won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to highlight the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and for helping to get a new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons adopted at the UN General Assembly with the support of 122 countries. That treaty is basically the only bright light for nuclear disarmament, which had been stalled for decades. Fitz: And yet while half the countries of the world have signed that treaty, and many more support it, Australia still isn't one of them? MP: Not yet. Anthony Albanese, in 2018 when he was in opposition, introduced a resolution to the national ALP platform, that Labor in government would join the treaty and Anthony, I think, has a personal commitment on this issue. Labor is now in its second term of government and it has a great opportunity to honour that platform commitment and its own strong history of championing nuclear disarmament by joining the treaty. There will, of course, be resistance from the defence establishment, but Australia's current reliance on US nuclear weapons in our defence policy is both dangerous (because it makes us a nuclear target) and absurd (because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours). If Australia was to join the nuclear ban treaty we would be improving our own security and that of our region and the world. Fitz: Is Iran a signatory of the treaty to ban nuclear weapons? MP: Iran and the United States are both parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from 1970, which aims to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, requires nuclear-armed states to negotiate disarmament, and allows countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under strict safeguards. Israel is not a party to the NPT. None of those countries have yet joined the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and we are encouraging them to do so. But Iran is entitled under the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Loading Fitz: The problem being it's only a small step from having a nuclear energy program to having nuclear weapons? MP: Until the attacks on it by Israel, Iran had been co-operating with international inspectors and engaging in talks with the US about its nuclear program. US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency had assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. And so the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran were clear violations of international law, since Iran had not attacked either country, had not threatened an imminent attack on those countries, and did not have nuclear weapons. These attacks were not only illegal but also counterproductive because Iran has now made a decision to suspend its co-operation with international inspections. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and it has never subjected itself to international inspections. It is arguably Israel's possession of nuclear weapons that has emboldened it to be a nuclear bully, to commit atrocities and genocide in Gaza and to attack other countries in the region, not only Iran, but also Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Fitz: But hang on, Melissa, Iran actually had launched some ballistic missiles at Israel before this strike. MP: The two incidents in April and October last year involved Iran responding to assassinations by Israel. They are entirely separate from Israel's June attacks this year, which Netanyahu himself claimed were 'pre-emptive self-defence' based on Iran being close to developing a nuclear weapon, which we know is not the case. That is, even Israel itself is not claiming the June attack on Iran was retaliation for last year's events. Fitz: I confess surprise at the strength of your language. As the executive director of ICAN it seems you're in a quasi-diplomatic role and it is rare that diplomats use very strong language like saying Israel's committing 'genocide' in Gaza. And yet you don't hesitate. MP: Well, I'm an advocate and an international lawyer rather than a diplomat. The word 'genocide' has been applied by many international legal experts to the Israel/Gaza situation, and every major international human rights organisation, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 'Genocide' is not an emotive expression, it is a legal one, applying the terms of the Genocide Convention to what is happening in Gaza, and it is very clear. The International Court of Justice has said it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You know it's not a controversial opinion in most of the world. Fitz: And you take it as absolute fact that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons? How do you know? MP: The same way we know that every other non-nuclear weapon state that is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not developing nuclear weapons, because there's a very strict inspections regime that's carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which the international community trusts. US intelligence and IAEA had both assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. So I'm not saying it as a guess or an assumption. Fitz: And so the net result of the American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities a fortnight ago? Loading MP: The world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe right now. These events expose the double standards inherent around nuclear weapons. You had here two countries with nuclear weapons – Israel and the US – attacking another country that does not have nuclear weapons, Iran. And as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, 'There are no right hands for wrong weapons'. Nuclear weapons are the only devices ever created that have the capacity to destroy all complex life on earth. No country should be able to threaten the end of life on this planet. No country should have these nuclear weapons. And these events have shown that you can't bomb your way to nuclear non-proliferation or security. You've got to negotiate agreements. You've got to return to the diplomatic process because these illegal attacks did not make the region or the world any safer. They've made it more dangerous by undermining the non-proliferation regime and international law itself. Striking nuclear installations is specifically banned under international law and risks causing radioactive contamination that's harmful to human health and the environment. This misadventure by Israel and the US may well have prompted Iran to consider building a nuclear weapon for the first time. Fitz: What is the doomsday scenario that keeps you awake at night? MP: This year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest we've ever been to global catastrophe – and that was before the recent India/Pakistan and Israel/US/Iran confrontations. There are more than 12,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with 2000 of them on high-alert launch status. As long as any nuclear weapons remain anywhere they are bound one day to be used, whether by design or by accident or miscalculation – the situation becomes even more dangerous with the increasing integration by the military of AI into nuclear command and control systems. When the experts 'war-game' likely scenarios, there's virtually none where the firing of one nuclear weapon doesn't lead to an escalatory exchange that results in all-out nuclear war. Fitz: And the bombing of Iran makes this more, not less, likely? Well, you didn't choose your words carefully on Israel, so what about US President Donald Trump? Is he now the most dangerous man in the world? MP: We don't know. It's entirely unpredictable. For instance, during his election campaign and then in his message to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Trump was talking about the need for denuclearisation, and saying he was going to talk to Russia and China about denuclearisation, and that nuclear weapons cost so much money that could be spent on other things, which is all true. ICAN's latest report shows that the nuclear armed states spent $US100 billion last year on their nuclear arsenals. The US is spending trillions of dollars on its nuclear modernisation program. So, Trump says he wants to denuclearise, but at the same time is approving increases to nuclear weapons modernisation programs. So we haven't seen him act consistently on this issue, and we really don't know which way it will go. He's apparently quite keen to get a Nobel Peace Prize. So if he could eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, maybe [he could get one]. Fitz: So if he could do that, you'd call it all even on the card for the many shocking things that he's done?
The Age
05-07-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Is the world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe? This expert thinks so
Fitz: Lights, camera, Kevin07! MP: Yes, and in parliament, the issues of concern to my Fremantle constituents tended to be the same things I was passionate about: that Australia should be a good global citizen, protect the environment, respect human rights and animal welfare, practice good governance and [be an] advocate for nuclear disarmament. Fitz: And what propelled you to leave parliament a decade later, even though by that point you'd had a stint as the minister for international development in the second Rudd government? MP: I'd been there for three terms and felt it was time to let someone else have the extraordinary privilege of being the federal MP for Freo. And frankly I was pretty burnt out. The next year I was asked to become an ambassador for ICAN Australia, and it went from there. Fitz: Which brings us indeed to ICAN. What is the central idea? MP: The idea is to abolish nuclear weapons globally. The campaign started in Melbourne in 2007, with a small group of people sitting around a kitchen table who decided to start a campaign based on earlier successful campaigns to ban landmines and cluster munitions, as well as chemical and biological weapons – you ban these inhumane weapons, and they become morally and legally unacceptable. Within 10 years of having started that campaign, ICAN had become a global civil society movement headquartered in Geneva, made up of hundreds of partner organisations around the world. It won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to highlight the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and for helping to get a new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons adopted at the UN General Assembly with the support of 122 countries. That treaty is basically the only bright light for nuclear disarmament, which had been stalled for decades. Fitz: And yet while half the countries of the world have signed that treaty, and many more support it, Australia still isn't one of them? MP: Not yet. Anthony Albanese, in 2018 when he was in opposition, introduced a resolution to the national ALP platform, that Labor in government would join the treaty and Anthony, I think, has a personal commitment on this issue. Labor is now in its second term of government and it has a great opportunity to honour that platform commitment and its own strong history of championing nuclear disarmament by joining the treaty. There will, of course, be resistance from the defence establishment, but Australia's current reliance on US nuclear weapons in our defence policy is both dangerous (because it makes us a nuclear target) and absurd (because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours). If Australia was to join the nuclear ban treaty we would be improving our own security and that of our region and the world. Fitz: Is Iran a signatory of the treaty to ban nuclear weapons? MP: Iran and the United States are both parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from 1970, which aims to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, requires nuclear-armed states to negotiate disarmament, and allows countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under strict safeguards. Israel is not a party to the NPT. None of those countries have yet joined the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and we are encouraging them to do so. But Iran is entitled under the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Loading Fitz: The problem being it's only a small step from having a nuclear energy program to having nuclear weapons? MP: Until the attacks on it by Israel, Iran had been co-operating with international inspectors and engaging in talks with the US about its nuclear program. US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency had assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. And so the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran were clear violations of international law, since Iran had not attacked either country, had not threatened an imminent attack on those countries, and did not have nuclear weapons. These attacks were not only illegal but also counterproductive because Iran has now made a decision to suspend its co-operation with international inspections. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and it has never subjected itself to international inspections. It is arguably Israel's possession of nuclear weapons that has emboldened it to be a nuclear bully, to commit atrocities and genocide in Gaza and to attack other countries in the region, not only Iran, but also Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Fitz: But hang on, Melissa, Iran actually had launched some ballistic missiles at Israel before this strike. MP: The two incidents in April and October last year involved Iran responding to assassinations by Israel. They are entirely separate from Israel's June attacks this year, which Netanyahu himself claimed were 'pre-emptive self-defence' based on Iran being close to developing a nuclear weapon, which we know is not the case. That is, even Israel itself is not claiming the June attack on Iran was retaliation for last year's events. Fitz: I confess surprise at the strength of your language. As the executive director of ICAN it seems you're in a quasi-diplomatic role and it is rare that diplomats use very strong language like saying Israel's committing 'genocide' in Gaza. And yet you don't hesitate. MP: Well, I'm an advocate and an international lawyer rather than a diplomat. The word 'genocide' has been applied by many international legal experts to the Israel/Gaza situation, and every major international human rights organisation, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 'Genocide' is not an emotive expression, it is a legal one, applying the terms of the Genocide Convention to what is happening in Gaza, and it is very clear. The International Court of Justice has said it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You know it's not a controversial opinion in most of the world. Fitz: And you take it as absolute fact that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons? How do you know? MP: The same way we know that every other non-nuclear weapon state that is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not developing nuclear weapons, because there's a very strict inspections regime that's carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which the international community trusts. US intelligence and IAEA had both assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. So I'm not saying it as a guess or an assumption. Fitz: And so the net result of the American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities a fortnight ago? Loading MP: The world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe right now. These events expose the double standards inherent around nuclear weapons. You had here two countries with nuclear weapons – Israel and the US – attacking another country that does not have nuclear weapons, Iran. And as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, 'There are no right hands for wrong weapons'. Nuclear weapons are the only devices ever created that have the capacity to destroy all complex life on earth. No country should be able to threaten the end of life on this planet. No country should have these nuclear weapons. And these events have shown that you can't bomb your way to nuclear non-proliferation or security. You've got to negotiate agreements. You've got to return to the diplomatic process because these illegal attacks did not make the region or the world any safer. They've made it more dangerous by undermining the non-proliferation regime and international law itself. Striking nuclear installations is specifically banned under international law and risks causing radioactive contamination that's harmful to human health and the environment. This misadventure by Israel and the US may well have prompted Iran to consider building a nuclear weapon for the first time. Fitz: What is the doomsday scenario that keeps you awake at night? MP: This year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest we've ever been to global catastrophe – and that was before the recent India/Pakistan and Israel/US/Iran confrontations. There are more than 12,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with 2000 of them on high-alert launch status. As long as any nuclear weapons remain anywhere they are bound one day to be used, whether by design or by accident or miscalculation – the situation becomes even more dangerous with the increasing integration by the military of AI into nuclear command and control systems. When the experts 'war-game' likely scenarios, there's virtually none where the firing of one nuclear weapon doesn't lead to an escalatory exchange that results in all-out nuclear war. Fitz: And the bombing of Iran makes this more, not less, likely? Well, you didn't choose your words carefully on Israel, so what about US President Donald Trump? Is he now the most dangerous man in the world? MP: We don't know. It's entirely unpredictable. For instance, during his election campaign and then in his message to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Trump was talking about the need for denuclearisation, and saying he was going to talk to Russia and China about denuclearisation, and that nuclear weapons cost so much money that could be spent on other things, which is all true. ICAN's latest report shows that the nuclear armed states spent $US100 billion last year on their nuclear arsenals. The US is spending trillions of dollars on its nuclear modernisation program. So, Trump says he wants to denuclearise, but at the same time is approving increases to nuclear weapons modernisation programs. So we haven't seen him act consistently on this issue, and we really don't know which way it will go. He's apparently quite keen to get a Nobel Peace Prize. So if he could eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, maybe [he could get one]. Fitz: So if he could do that, you'd call it all even on the card for the many shocking things that he's done?
The National
23-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
Scottish Secretary Ian Murray ends 'lifelong' opposition to nukes
Speaking to Scottish media during a visit to East Lothian on Monday, Ian Murray said that his long-held position on nukes had changed because the world had changed. Previously, Murray described himself as a 'lifelong unilateralist', meaning he supported the UK binning its nuclear arsenal without any agreements for other nuclear-armed states to do the same. He is among the 2000 parliamentarians to have signed the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) pledge, which obliges signatories to work for their respective nations to sign up to a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons through the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). READ MORE: UN summit 'delivers strongest condemnation yet' of nuclear deterrence During a visit to an energy project in Cockenzie on Monday, Murray was asked about his position on nuclear weapons following the US government's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities amid the country's escalating war with Israel. Asked if he was still a 'lifelong unilateralist' who wanted the UK to give up its nukes, Murray said: 'My position's not that anymore. I mean, times have changed. 'You can very much see with what's happened in Ukraine, but also the instability across the world, that is very important for us to have that nuclear deterrent. I think the public's also changed their mood on that.' Murray was then asked if he would remove his name from the ICAN pledge, where he is still listed as a signatory, due to his change of heart. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey on board a UK nuclear submarine at Faslane (Image: Simon Dawson/No 10 Downing Street) The Scottish Secretary initially seemed to play the pledge down, twice suggesting it was something he had signed in 2014. It was pointed out that the pledge did not exist before the adoption of the TPNW in mid-2017. Pushed on whether he would take his name off it, Murray said: 'Well, I would have to look at how to do that. I don't know if it's possible to do that, but certainly times have changed. 'The real important thing here is that the [UK] Government's posture is quite clear. I think the public back that posture in terms of increasing defence spending. 'I think nuclear deterrence is something that is critical in terms of national security, not just for ourselves, but our NATO allies. READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill: Donald Trump's bombing of Iran is illegal and insane 'So things do move on, and it's really important to have that very strong message both to our NATO allies and indeed to our European allies and the US that our commitment to that nuclear deterrent is sacrosanct and our commitment to NATO the same.' Asked again if he would then remove his name from the ICAN pledge, Murray said: 'If that's what's required.' He added: 'If you want to ask if I've changed my view, the answer to that question is obviously yes, but I think it's really important when circumstances change for that to happen.' The Scottish Secretary was visiting East Lothian to mark the launch of the UK Government's industrial strategy, which was published on Monday and outlined eight key areas for development in the British economy. These are: Advanced manufacturing Defence Clean energy Digital and technology Creative industries Financial services Life sciences Professional and business services For Scotland, the strategy singled out areas including Glasgow for manufacturing and defence, Edinburgh for financial and creative industries, Dundee for life sciences, and Aberdeen for energy. It further said a new 'professional and business services skills hub' would be set up somewhere in the 'Edinburgh-Glasgow central belt', mirroring similar projects in Manchester, Liverpool, Yorkshire, and the Midlands. The strategy said the hubs 'will reflect local needs and priorities, from accelerating the development of emerging technology sectors to connecting firms to potential investors'. Speaking to media in East Lothian, Murray was asked whether he believed Scottish Government opposition to the use of public money for arms firms or nuclear projects are holding the country's economy back. Torness power station (Image: Copyright Richard Sutcliffe and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence) The UK Government has said it will step in if necessary after Rolls-Royce was told that a project for a welding centre in the Glasgow area could not be supported with £2.5 million of funding from Scottish Enterprise due to the SNP Government's policy of not funding 'munitions' projects. And the SNP also oppose any new nuclear energy plants north of the Border, a policy Labour have insisted they will quickly rescind if they win power at Holyrood. Murray said: 'We're not very far away from Torness, in terms of Scotland's nuclear site, and if you look at the announcement that's been made in terms of the massive investment into Sizewell C, that's 10,000 jobs, that's 1500 apprenticeships, it's £14.6 billion. 'That investment could be coming to Scotland, but it's currently not because of the de-facto ban on nuclear here. 'Likewise with defence, we have a very, very big defence footprint in Scotland. In fact, the investment in defence will disproportionately benefit Scotland in terms of jobs and that growth. 'We have to look at that as an economic opportunity, but if that is stifled, it's not going to happen.'
Time of India
04-05-2025
- Science
- Time of India
India–Pakistan nuclear conflict won't just be a border issue: 2019 'Nostradamus' study warns it could starve the world
In 2019, researchers from the University of Colorado and Rutgers University issued a stark warning: a war between India and Pakistan was possible by 2025, and it could go nuclear. Published in Science Advances, the study combined insights from major institutions including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Federation of American Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Now, in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, their prediction feels chillingly prescient. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack India much better equipped to target cross-border terror since Balakot India conducts maiden flight-trials of stratospheric airship platform Pakistan shuts ports for Indian ships after New Delhi bans imports from Islamabad The study aimed not to speculate, but to urge global action. It stressed the need for international agreements like the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to prevent such catastrophes. Using computer simulations, the researchers showed just how quickly a regional conflict could spiral into a global disaster. Nuclear war projections: Tens of millions dead, globally affected According to the study, if India were to use 100 nuclear strategic weapons and Pakistan 150, the immediate death toll could reach 100 million. Another 50 to 125 million might die in the aftermath—through radiation exposure, injuries, famine, and environmental collapse. GIF89a����!�,D; 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by The co-author of the report, Alan Robock of Rutgers University's Department of Environmental Sciences, made the global stakes clear: 'A war like that would threaten not just the areas where bombs would be dropped but the whole world.' Black carbon, lost sunlight, and global famine But it doesn't end with blasts. The research also warned of massive environmental consequences. The detonation of nuclear weapons would likely ignite firestorms, releasing 16 to 36 million tonnes of black carbon into the upper atmosphere. This soot would block sunlight, causing a drop in global temperatures by up to 5°C. Sunlight levels could fall by 35%, and precipitation by 30%. Live Events The knock-on effects? Crops would fail. Ocean ecosystems would suffer. Global food supplies would collapse. The study predicted that plant growth could decrease by up to 30%, while ocean productivity might drop by 15%. These disruptions would linger for a decade, if not longer, as the soot would remain suspended in the upper atmosphere. 2025 Nuclear arsenal estimates raise alarm The researchers also projected the possible growth of both nations' nuclear arsenals by 2025. India's stockpile was estimated to reach 400 to 500 warheads, each capable of destruction similar to the Hiroshima bomb of 1945, which had a yield of 15 kilotonnes. Pakistan's nuclear stockpile was also expected to grow significantly. The fact that both countries are nuclear-armed and within close range of one another only amplifies the risk. Experts have long viewed South Asia as one of the most volatile nuclear flashpoints on the planet. The study didn't just raise alarms—it called for action. It highlighted the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as a vital global instrument. Despite not being signed by nuclear powers like India or Pakistan, the treaty stands as a symbolic and political tool to stigmatise and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons. As tensions between the two neighbours rise again in 2025, the voices of those researchers from 2019 echo louder. Their message was clear then, and even more urgent now: a nuclear war in South Asia would not stay in South Asia. It would touch every life on this planet.
Time of India
03-05-2025
- Science
- Time of India
Nostradamus predicted the year of conflict between India and Pakistan in 2025—did he warn of a nuclear disaster
The potential for a war between India and Pakistan, especially after events such as the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22, 2025, has raised serious concern about the threat of nuclear escalation. To this effect, a 2019 report forebodingly predicted the timing of the war, forecasting 2025 as the year when a potential war could erupt. This delves profoundly into the calamitous consequences of a nuclear war between these two nations, underscoring the global impact a disaster of such magnitude would possess. Nuclear catastrophe between India and Pakistan: Experts warn in groundbreaking study The primary research was done by researchers from the University of Colorado, with the help of Rutgers University, and published in Science Advances. The study collected data and feedback from a diverse set of organizations and experts such as US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Federation of American Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, as well as institutions like the University of Texas at Rio Grande and the University of California at Los Angeles. The final aim of the 2019 study was to sound an alarm about the nuclear war potential catastrophe between India and Pakistan. It stressed the need for international conventions that work against such wars, specifically pointing out the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The forecasts of the study were to get everyone to realise how horrible the aftermath of an atomic war would be for not just the South Asian region but the world at large. According to the simulations in the research, Indian and Pakistani nuclear attacks could result in 100 million immediate fatalities. Additionally, another 50 to 125 million could perish from the aftermath, including radiation, injuries, and environmental damage. The research detailed one example of India deploying 100 nuclear strategic weapons and Pakistan deploying 150 and showed how massive the loss of life would be. How nuclear conflict could trigger a global famine crisis In addition to the direct destruction, the study predicted that a nuclear conflict would initiate a global mass starvation phenomenon. This would occur because the nuclear explosions would initiate fires which would release huge quantities of soot and black carbon into the atmosphere. The smoke would obscure sunlight, reducing global temperatures as much as 5 degrees Celsius, destroying agriculture worldwide. A decrease in world precipitation by as much as 30% would further intensify food deficits, resulting in mass famine. One of the authors of the report from Rutgers University's Department of Environmental Sciences, Alan Robock, pointed out that the destruction would not be limited to the targeted cities but would be universal. "A war like that would threaten not just the areas where bombs would be dropped but the whole world," Robock said. India and Pakistan's nuclear inventory growth and its global impact The study also made an estimate of the probable size of India's and Pakistan's nuclear weapons inventories by 2025. It predicted that India's maximum inventory size would be 400 to 500 nuclear weapons by then, with explosive yields equivalent to Hiroshima bombs of World War II, whose weights range between 15 kilotons (15,000 tonnes TNT). The Pakistani stockpile would also see enormous growth, further increasing the risks of a nuclear war in the subcontinent. Maybe the most eye-opening aspect of the study was that it investigated the environmental impact of a nuclear war. The authors calculated that the nuclear explosions would ignite fires that would release between 16 million and 36 million tonnes of soot into the atmosphere. This black carbon would cover the sun and disrupt the Earth's climate system, leading to an effect of nuclear winter. The study warned that plant growth may reduce by up to 30% and ocean productivity by up to 15%. The climatic conditions would persist for a minimum of 10 years because the soot would remain suspended in the atmosphere for a very long period, making it hard to recover. Also Read | Baba Vanga's 2025 predictions: Is the next world war just around the corner - here's what she predicted about the global wars and other crisis Discover everything about astrology at the Times of India , including daily horoscopes for Aries , Taurus , Gemini , Cancer , Leo , Virgo , Libra , Scorpio , Sagittarius , Capricorn , Aquarius , and Pisces .
